|
Post by Noelfitz on Oct 21, 2008 2:02:16 GMT
I read that the possible canonization of Pius XII is being considered. This is controversial.
I also read that the Vatican archives have only been released up to 1939 and that there is no relevant publicly available Vatican documents to support the contention that Pius XII intervened to help Jews during the Hitler years.
I also read that privately and secretly Pius XII helped Jews.
What purpose, at present, would the canonization of Pius XII serve?
Would advancing his cause be needlessly divisive?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Oct 21, 2008 7:57:47 GMT
"This is controversial" ?? "I read than Pie XII helped the jews" Where you come from ? Pie XII made everything he could to help the jews and saved many ! The legacy of this Pope during WWII is admirable.
|
|
|
Post by ezigboututu on Oct 22, 2008 12:56:56 GMT
I read that the possible canonization of Pius XII is being considered. This is controversial. I also read that the Vatican archives have only been released up to 1939 and that there is no relevant publicly available Vatican documents to support the contention that Pius XII intervened to help Jews during the Hitler years. I also read that privately and secretly Pius XII helped Jews. What purpose, at present, would the canonization of Pius XII serve? Would advancing his cause be needlessly divisive? This seems to be a case of a supremely arrogant defiance of reality and an attempt to fly in the face of history. The persecution of the Jewish people was made a tradition by a series of Popes. The Nazi persecutions of the Jews were based on those first invented by the Catholic Church. It was Eugenio Pacelli later to become Pius XII who signed the Reichskonkordat with the Nazis allowing them a path to power aided and abetted by the Vatican.
|
|
|
Post by ezigboututu on Oct 22, 2008 13:00:23 GMT
"This is controversial" ?? "I read than Pie XII helped the jews" Where you come from ? Pie XII made everything he could to help the jews and saved many ! The legacy of this Pope during WWII is admirable. Si tu veux savoir comme l'Église catholique a traité les Juifs ont lu cet article. Tout dedans peut être vérifié historiquement. www.atheist.ie/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=638
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Oct 22, 2008 13:09:16 GMT
"This is controversial" ?? "I read than Pie XII helped the jews" Where you come from ? Pie XII made everything he could to help the jews and saved many ! The legacy of this Pope during WWII is admirable. Si tu veux savoir comme l'Église catholique a traité les Juifs ont lu cet article. Tout dedans peut être vérifié historiquement. www.atheist.ie/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=638If you want to speak french, do it properly. Falconer, you are not welcome here. And I prefer to be eaten alive by tigers or lions, that to even click to your evil and abominable website.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 22, 2008 23:36:21 GMT
We have two separate questions here: (1) Pius XI and Pius XII signed the Concordat with the Hitler government because they believed it would give them diplomatic leverage to protect the German Church. They were quite mistaken in this because they didn't realise the extent of Hitler's untrustworthiness. Most of the pro and anti-Pius apologetic is extremely onesided and talks past its opponents. From my own desultory reading I believe that Pius XII did all he could to help the Jews and didn't speak out more openly because he feared it would prejudice his overall efforts. I think a reasonable case can be made that he was mistaken but it's not possible to decide one way or another. Michael Burleigh has some interesting material on this in one of his recent books. The Vatican has published 14 volumes of documents on Pius's wartime activities but do not yet allow access to the full archives for the period. I think this is a mistake; if they produce a selection they must have done it on the basis of some criterion and they should allow others to test its validity. (2) There is I am sorry to say a long and shameful tradition of Catholic anti-semitism. This is not comparable to Nazi exterminationism, nor its only source (Hitler's Table Talk is full of rants against Catholicism) but it is quite bad enough. Under the Papal States Jews in Rome received the same sort of treatment as Irish Catholics under the penal laws - they enjoyed a de facto toleration but were subject to all sorts of harrassment and pressures to convert. Daniel O'Connell drew attention to this parallel. Then there is the vicious nineteenth-century strain within French Catholicism which blamed the Jews for all the ills of modernity and found an Irish representative in Fr. Denis Fahey, who still has his disciples. (I think he would make a very good subject for the Formosus treatment - i.e dug up and retrospectively excommunicated.) Vatican II and John Paul II made formal acts of repentance for past sins against the Jewish people and they were right to do so. This is a separate issue from Pius XII - don't use him as a scapegoat!
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Oct 23, 2008 13:07:42 GMT
I read from Saintstephen:
"When Canonized, his historical record will finally be completed accurately rather than left to speculation by the hypocrites."
I also read from Ezigboututu:
"This seems to be a case of a supremely arrogant defiance of reality and an attempt to fly in the face of history.
The persecution of the Jewish people was made a tradition by a series of Popes. The Nazi persecutions of the Jews were based on those first invented by the Catholic Church.
It was Eugenio Pacelli later to become Pius XII who signed the Reichskonkordat with the Nazis allowing them a path to power aided and abetted by the Vatican."
Hibernicus gives a great reply.
I agree with him.
It is generally agreed that the 1933 concordat between the Holy See and Germany was a disaster. However people are canonized for their sanctity not for the political successes.
Also we are not considering the Catholic treatment of the Jews over centuries, but the canonization of Pius XII/Eugenio Pacelli.
To me it seem inopportune to consider the canonization when the archives post 1939 are not available.
I cannot see a good reason to canonize Pius XII at present. It would only cause controversy. There really is no need to canonize all recent Popes.
If his canonization is to be considered, perhaps we should see why this should be so and all relevant documentation should be made available.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 24, 2008 12:47:19 GMT
Then there is the vicious nineteenth-century strain within French Catholicism which blamed the Jews for all the ills of modernity and found an Irish representative in Fr. Denis Fahey, who still has his disciples. (I think he would make a very good subject for the Formosus treatment - i.e dug up and retrospectively excommunicated.) This is very true. I second the motion for Fr Fahey's retrospective excommunication. And the strain of French Catholicism Hibernicus refers to is flourishing among the SSPX.
|
|
|
Post by faithful on Oct 24, 2008 14:38:25 GMT
We have two separate questions here: (1) Pius XI and Pius XII signed the Concordat with the Hitler government because they believed it would give them diplomatic leverage to protect the German Church. They were quite mistaken in this because they didn't realise the extent of Hitler's untrustworthiness. Most of the pro and anti-Pius apologetic is extremely onesided and talks past its opponents. From my own desultory reading I believe that Pius XII did all he could to help the Jews and didn't speak out more openly because he feared it would prejudice his overall efforts. I think a reasonable case can be made that he was mistaken but it's not possible to decide one way or another. Michael Burleigh has some interesting material on this in one of his recent books. The Vatican has published 14 volumes of documents on Pius's wartime activities but do not yet allow access to the full archives for the period. I think this is a mistake; if they produce a selection they must have done it on the basis of some criterion and they should allow others to test its validity. (2) There is I am sorry to say a long and shameful tradition of Catholic anti-semitism. This is not comparable to Nazi exterminationism, nor its only source (Hitler's Table Talk is full of rants against Catholicism) but it is quite bad enough. Under the Papal States Jews in Rome received the same sort of treatment as Irish Catholics under the penal laws - they enjoyed a de facto toleration but were subject to all sorts of harrassment and pressures to convert. Daniel O'Connell drew attention to this parallel. Then there is the vicious nineteenth-century strain within French Catholicism which blamed the Jews for all the ills of modernity and found an Irish representative in Fr. Denis Fahey, who still has his disciples. (I think he would make a very good subject for the Formosus treatment - i.e dug up and retrospectively excommunicated.) Vatican II and John Paul II made formal acts of repentance for past sins against the Jewish people and they were right to do so. This is a separate issue from Pius XII - don't use him as a scapegoat! "Pius XI and Pius XII signed the Concordat with the Hitler government" This would be normal for a head of State to do so. I don't think Pope Pius XII should be used a scapegoat.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Oct 25, 2008 16:14:48 GMT
Saintstephen,
I agree with you that the public does not decide a canonization. However popular devotion is a factor in deciding on canonizations. Pius XII's reputation is questioned by many and it really would be divisive to canonize him.
If the Vatican archives were available to vindicate his anti-Nazi stand this would help public opinion to support his canonization.
A concordat between the Holy See and Germany is a matter of interest to historians and very many others as well.
The Vatican is a State and hence can make concordats with other States, which can be studied.
However I am very grateful to you for contributing to this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Oct 26, 2008 2:54:16 GMT
Saintstepern
Thank you for your your post.
You wrote:
" [Pius XII] collaborated with Benedict xv in the attempt to stop the "senseless slaughter" of the Great War and for having realized from the outset, the danger constituted by the monstrous National-Socialist ideology with its pernicious anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic roots."
I agree that Benedict XV made heroic efforts to prevent WW I.
It is also admitted that Pius XII, who belonged to one of the great aristocratic Roman families, was a diplomat and bureaucrat. However as the archives are not available one does not know what he did to combat Nazism.
There does not seem to be popular devotion to him at present
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Oct 26, 2008 14:25:48 GMT
Saintstephen
I do not fully agree with you.
I believe in openness and truth.
"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 27, 2008 13:18:39 GMT
The statement about Fr. Gruner above is not quite correct. He was ordained for the diocese of Avellino in Italy, which allowed him to carry on His "Fatima Crusader" activities. When his bishop asked him to give up these activities and return to the diocese to resume ministry there, he refused and had his faculties suspended. He is therefore a validly ordained priest, but his activities and his celebration of the sacraments (except in grave necessity) are illicit as he does not have faculties from any diocese or religious order. catholicinsight.com/online/church/printer_ci_gruner.shtml I might add that Fr. Gruner is not a good argument for keeping things secret, given that his whole stock-in-trade derives from the failure to publish the Third Secret at the time orignally intended, which produced years of speculation about its contents and meant that when it was published some devotees refused to believe something wasn't still being held back. As regards Pius XII and the documents: - the Vatican has published 14 volumes of documents from his reign, and papal archives are generally open to inspection after a period. (Obviously no-one would argue that every document however confidential should be opened straight away.) My problem with the way they handled this is that some years ago they appointed a commission of historians to investigate PIUS XII's actions and decisions, then said that they should only study the published documents and refused to let them into the archives. They might reasonably have refused to appoint such a commission at all; but once they had appointed one it was a mistake not to give it a free hand in this . (For the record, I am not saying they were engaged in a cover-up, just that they mishandled it.) There certainly is a fair bit of devotion to Pius XII, especially among traditionalists and many older people who remember his pontificate. I would favour his canonisation myself, but great care should be taken not to give opportunities for scandal, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation. Personally I think it was a mistake to abolish the "devil's advocate" (the Vatican official charged with arguing the case against a proposed canonisation, corresponding to the promoter - in Pius XII's case Fr. Gumpel, who gathers evidence in its favour and argues the case for its advancement). The intention was good (the old adversarial process was long and expensive and made it very difficult to promote the Cause of anyone who didn't have a religious order, big diocese or some other well-endowed patron behind them) but the result has been that where there are significant controversies the critics are able to claim with some plausibility that they have been short-changed and their viewpoint has not been heard, since no-one is charged with going out and hearing their complaints in the way that the promoter gathers favourable testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Oct 27, 2008 13:42:18 GMT
"Then will you confess your sins openly and truthfully on this website forum?"
I confess that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed, through my fault. thorough my fault through my most grievous fault.
Does that satisfy you, Saintstephen?
I read in the current Irish Catholic (Oct 23):
"Fr Frederico Lombardi called on all sides of the Pius debate to row back from pressurising Pope Benedict on the matter of his predecessor's canonisation".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 28, 2008 12:17:46 GMT
SaintStephen: It's not a sin to call for the release of confidential information from the Vatican, given that it is the Vatican which decides what is or is not confidential. It is sinful to demand it as a matter of right (unless under very grave circumstances), to attempt to coerce its release by threats, or to make false and slanderous accusations about the Vatican's motives for not releasing it.
|
|